Bushbasher wrote:

“but you can help. just tell me which society, past or present, that you regard as closest to your libertarian paradise. …..”

Given that society is always in a state of flux and changes from day to day; further given that any two persons will have different perceptions of society, there can be no precise answer to your question.

The terms positive and/or negative are not in themselves important except to indicate a sense of direction or tendency in which society might move.

Jefferson has identified a totalitarian direction in environmentalism. That is he recognises it is authoritarian, hierarchal and has an ideology dogma. Climate gate illustrates how certain powerful professors can influence Journal Editors and also research funding. Labelling non believers as “deniers” is an example of how mild abuse rather then free discussion can be used stifle to debate. Like it or not these are tendencies towards a dictatorship. The dictator may have been elected into office. The ruling party knows what is best for us and naturally governs in our “best interest.”

Several postings find the word “fascist” to be an offensive description for the philosophy of environmentalism. Ok how about substituting the phrase, “the democratic republic of politically correct thinking people?”

The other direction is towards liberty and freedom of the individual. Yes even in a free society there has to be constrains. My point is that constrains on individual action should be minimal. Obviously certain types of behaviour will not be tolerated even in the freest of society. All functioning societies must have “law and order.”

My final point is that these and almost certainly other social forces are in a state of unstable equilibrium (to borrow a term from mathematics).

>> Jefferson has identified a totalitarian direction in environmentalism.

no he hasn't. he's simply claimed it. what the hell is so totalitarian about trying to arrange an international *agreement* to control gasses? would you argue the same if it were liquids or solids? or, do you not care if your neighbor pisses and craps on your lawn?

of course, if you're really interested in totalitarianism, you might discuss bush's henchmen torturing and executing people in the midst of lying us into a war, and justifying it by arguing that the president of the u.s. can legally do whatever he damn well pleases. why don't you ask hicks or hanif whether they fear bob brown's fascism more or less than howard's?

but i suspect you guys are not really interested in totalitarianism. you're simply interested in slinging insane charges of fascism, all the while calling for reasoned debate.

>> That is he recognises it is authoritarian, hierarchal and has an ideology dogma.

compared to who and what?

>> Climate gate illustrates how certain powerful professors can influence Journal Editors and also research funding.

if this is news to you, you know bugger all about academia.

>> Labelling non believers as “deniers” is an example of how mild abuse rather then free discussion can be used stifle to debate.

if the loon shoe fits, wear it. yes, namecalling can stifle debate. but some forms of disbelief amount to nothing but a religious-like denial, and that is simply true for much of the disbelief of AGW. the arguments of special-pleading, cherry-picking AGW-denying twats deserve not an ounce of respect.

>> Like it or not these are tendencies towards a dictatorship.

yes, and if i jump in the air, i'm tending towards the moon.

i don't like the authoritarian tendencies of western democracies very much either. but i plan to wait at least a week or two before i morph into a complete conspiracy nut.

As previously noted the word Fascism and its derivations should not be applied to the environmental lobby, not because said greenies are correct or wrong, or, because they are loud and organised; rather, Justin and Cheryl and others use the word so incorrectly, it isn't legitimate to use it,even as tougue-in-cheek emphasis or exaggeration.

The following makes sense to me, and I do not see a whiff of fascism in it:

‘The protection and conservation of the natural environment and the planned use of natural resources in recognition of the close relationship between man and nature and the finite nature of the earth’s resources.’

‘… the world environmental crisis arises from:
• The affluent society’s abandonment of the virtue of frugality;
• The continuance of too much of the attitude of “taming the wilderness” coupled with insufficient appreciation of the value of unique flora and fauna; and
• A failure to recognise the interdependence of men and nature.’

The policy went on to call for such things as 5 per cent of the country to be national parks, taxes on environmentally damaging products, research into solar energy and fusion energy, etc.

Governments wanting to keep people fearful of dubious or even out-right incorrect outcomes are what? Democratic? Working in favour of the people and their well being?

More and more we are being herded like sheep into a society that will one day be too scared to leave their homes, eat what that choose and never have fun or if they do they will pay money for it. It will be supervised.

They pay scientists and academia to do studies to tell us things we already know, why? We can't think or look after ourselves; we work, we pay taxes, we raise families, few of us break the law.

Who are these people forever intruding on our lives with dire warnings on.....simply everything. They won't even let people die when they should and then complain that the health system is imploding under the burden and costing too much.

What exactly do you call that type of government? Once upon a time governments governed, like they improved living standards, infrastructure and such. Now they just jet around the world talking about.... well you know, if I say it, I would be told to take out the profanity.

Quite honestly, just my opinion, most politicians are the greatest freeloaders in the world today.

Happy everything to you all, have a lovely holiday and Christmas. I still call it that, even though some say it's inappropriate, those thought police again. Bugger it even though I am an atheist, I like calling the holiday Christmas.

Implicit in the article is the assumption as if humans are not the product of, and not dependent on, the natural environment ... namely as if humans are some kind of an a god-like race which transcends natural evolution and does not need to live in harmony with nature. Such an ideology contrasts with everything biology, anthropology and agricultural science demonstrate, as well as with history which documents the collapse of civilizations which cut their forests and polluted the water, as in Gerard Diamond's "Collapse". A "human over nature" anthropocentric view can only lead to self destruction of the human ability to grow food and survive.